Article Tools

Against the recommendation of its own staff, the California Coastal Commission voted 9-1 on Wednesday to deny Santa Barbara County’s proposal to build a permeable pile pier - a structure designed to slow the effects of beach erosion by holding sand on the beach - along the wharf at Goleta Beach.

After facing several El Ni±o storms over the past decade, erosion at Goleta Beach has prompted community concern for the future of its most heavily visited public park, and some supporters now call for drastic measures to save it. On most weekends throngs of people can be seen relaxing on the park’s green lawns and sandy beach, and public sentiment has been largely in favor of protecting it. Although the county was singularly dedicated to developing the permeable pile proposal, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and the Santa Barbara Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation have sought an alternative with fewer environmental impacts. They propose an alternative initially called a “managed retreat” and more recently “park reconfiguration,” which appears to have driven the final nail in the coffin of the proposed pile pier.

“This is a big surprise to us. We thought that because of staff approval, we’d just get a nod to get approved and go home,” said Dave Hardy, co-owner of the Beachside Cafe. Situated at the base of the pier, Hardy’s business has perhaps more to lose than others weighing in on the situation.

The Coastal Commission’s final verdict was not the only surprise during Wednesday’s proceedings. At the last minute, Coastal Commission alternate Dr. Dan Secord unexpectedly recused himself because of his supportive comments he made public on July 2. “I went to Goleta City Council and advocated for the project, and that wasn’t the proper thing to do, so I had to recuse myself,” he said.

Some environmental activists offered public comments at this week’s Coastal Commission hearing that significantly swayed Wednesday’s vote. Often, some commissioners will defer their vote to the commissioner of the region that the vote will affect. However, Secord indicated otherwise. “The vote was 9-1, and if I’d been there, it would have been 9-2,” he said.

By Paul Wellman (file)

Workers attempt to shore up Goleta beach during January storms 2005

While a park reconfiguration solution was not being considered as an option by Santa Barbara County, EDC and Surfrider mounted a relentless campaign to bring it to the attention of Coastal Commissioners. The environmental groups hired Dr. David Revell of Phillip Williams & Associates - an environmental hydrology firm - and a number of other experts to conduct an independent study comparing their proposal against the county’s. According to them, the results made their alternative all the more appealing, with lower costs and fewer impacts on the beach and its guests. Though county officials disagreed with the numbers produced by Brian Trautwein, EDC’s environmental analyst, Trautwein indicated that the permeable pile project would cost about $2 million more just to start up than the park reconfiguration alternative. In addition, ongoing maintenance over the next decade would total more than $20 million for the permeable pier, compared with $8.4 million for park reconfiguration.

Aside from the cost, a number of other concerns were brought up by environmental activists and others who made the trip to San Luis Obispo’s county administration building. “Your handling of this will set precedent for statewide seawall construction,” said Mark Massara, who represented the Sierra Club in the matter. “This is like putting a picnic table on top of an unpermitted sea wall. And for what? For a lawn and a utility line,” he said, adding that sea level rise was not taken into account.

Speaking on behalf of the Goleta City Council, Councilmember Michael Bennett spoke in favor of the permeable pier, voicing his agency’s worries that the popular beach would disappear without intervention.

Referencing the many ruins of coastal armoring structures seen all over California’s coast, UCSB physics professor Everett Lipman looked at the potential legacy of a coastal protection structure that is not maintained. “Whenever I scrape myself on one of those rusty I-beams, I remind myself that once upon a time, some coastal engineer convinced some policy maker that this was the best solution,” he said.

This is not the first time hard structures have been suggested for coastal protection at Goleta Beach. Over the last few decades, storm damage has threatened the integrity of asphalt parking surfaces, utility lines, bathroom structures, and the Beachside Cafe at Goleta Beach. The county’s response has been immediate coastal armoring in the form of rock piles along the edge of the beach nearest the grass, which tenuously protected beachfront infrastructure as coastal sands were quickly washed away by the strength of winter storms. Key detractors of this approach, EDC and Surfrider decried what they said was unpermitted placement of the rocks, citing their belief that it caused further erosion downcoast from Goleta Beach, and objecting to the county’s failure to remove the rocks once the seasonal rough weather patterns subsided.

In its first evolution, mitigation measures proposed during nearly a decade of community meetings and workshops included rock walls extending out into the water, offshore rock walls, more dredging, an artificial headland at the end of the beach closest to UCSB, and managed retreat. That last option was dismissed by the county as giving up land area at the highly trafficked park, but stone structures were seen as too heavy-handed a solution to the problem of beach erosion. When Moffatt & Nichol, the engineering firm in the county’s employ, offered the permeable pile option, it was lauded as an innovative approach. Environmental groups were still not convinced.

The Coastal Commission’s staff, after what they described as a thorough review process, recommended the permeable pile pier, but with 18 conditions, covering everything from potential impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas to the type of dredging equipment that would be used. “This is one of the most heavily conditioned projects we’ve ever had,” said Jonna Engel, the commission’s staff ecologist, adding that staff was extremely thorough in its gathering of information from Moffatt & Nichols.

In order to obtain more detailed information about the area where sand was to be dredged for beach nourishment, Engel said that the Coastal Commission staff required Moffatt & Nichol to hire scuba divers to take core samples of the sandy bottom in order to more accurately determine its makeup.

Commissioners one by one expressed their interest in what they said was an experimental but innovative permeable pile pier project, but that they needed more information and physical modeling to commit to it. “To be pithy for a second, I don’t think we should think with our groins,” said Commissioner Ross Mirkarimi, who, along with other commissioners, expressed his reservation that the permeable pier is the best way to protect the beach.

Although a motion was made to continue the project, Coastal Commission staff said that they had worked on it enough, and did not feel that dedicating more time and resources to it would be productive. In addition, neither the county nor most of the commissioners wanted to continue either, so the project was voted down by all except Commissioner Khatchik Achadjian.

“There are a lot of pissed-off stakeholders out there that are going to want nothing to do with managed retreat,” said Santa Barbara County Parks Director Dan Hernandez after the decision was handed down, noting that essentially, it’s back to the drawing board for the county. John Baker, Santa Barbara County’s Assistant CEO, stormed from the room after the proceedings concluded.

Trautwein said that, at this point, EDC and Surfrider would like to work with the county to come up with something everyone can agree on. “We would like to find an alternative solution that protects the park, the beach, and the environment,” he said. “Today, the commission upheld the Coastal Act. It was a victory for our beaches and for people who love beaches.”

the other possible problem with this is, if SB loses the beach the highway connecting to UCSB and the airport is next. then maybe old town goleta, if we look at the maps of the past, not saving the beach now could cost billions with in 10 or so years.

Jrock, are you kidding?? Who do you work for and where are you getting these outrageous claims about losing the airport??

This is a HUGE victory for coastal advocates!!

Guess what? The beach is SUPPOSED to erode. That's how beaches work. If you try to manage this beach, then you will adversely affect beaches down the coast causing even MORE erosion problems elsewhere. If you leave it alone, there will be plenty of sand everywhere because you are allowing natural erosion to occur. In concert with a healthy watershed you have plenty of sediment to keep the beaches nice and sandy, protecting inland areas as much as they can be. You propose a temporary solution that is disastrous in the long-run.

So, JrockSB, you think that business profit or loss should be the determing factor in all this? Fine. Let the Beachside pay for all remediation and secondary effects. Fits with your perspective, right?

As has been explained to me, each beach is locally created by local streams that carry mountain soil to the ocean. Thus, the beach here does not influence the beach in San Diego. The sand comes to the beach by streams, goes along the shore like a river, south, and then eventually finds a canyon under the ocean to dump into, a sandfall like a waterfall. The cycle starts with the next litoral cell. No, beaches are not necessarily supposed to erode. However, if dams block the rush of spring water and the soil it carries and picks up from previous rains, then the local beach will erode since no replenishing sand comes along. I claim no expertise, just as was explained to me.

This is like stopping the wind, rain, sun, moon, night and day...nature changes the shape of things...accept it and move on...nothing lasts forever...the Beachside as well as the Boathouse shouldn't be on the sand anyway. They are toxic to the beach, the county should close them down and raze them, healthier and more cost effective long term.

The Coastal Commission did the right thing. The Coastal Act requires 'beaches' be protected, not parking lots, playgrounds, a lawn or a private commercial business. Those man made amenities can ALL simply be moved back a bit. A beach backed by a hard structure cannot move back, it simply disappears.

It remains to be seen whether SB Co. can pull their head out of sea rise denial and move back. The real story here is the $3 million taxpayer dollars SB spent on private lobbyists (Who is the Chambers Group from Irvine and Susan McCabe Associates and why are they being paid millions for lobbying the Coastal Commission?!?) and engineers (Moffett & Nichols, notorious seawall advocates) on secret contracts not approved by the Board of Supervisors? Heads should roll. SB Co. executives need to be held accountable. The public should be protected against these wildly stupid ideas and expenditures.

First off let me compliment Ben Preston on some seriously good reporting and background. Very informative article. Next question I have is how could the CCC staff have supported approving this project which is in clear violation of not only CEQA ( California Environmental Quality Act) but the Coastal Act. Third, why is Santa Barbara County spending thousands and thousands of dollars on this losing battle. Surfrider and the EDC have come up with a perfect alternative that both preserves the majority of the park AND offers the best hope of preserving the beach itself. The park, after all, is called Goleta BEACH Park. If the sandy beach is lost the park's value will be greatly diminished. We all need to tell the county to back off of it's stubborn position and work constructively with EDC, Surfrider and the rest of the community to come up with an affordable plan that protects the park and the sandy beach. The fear mongering notion that unless Moffat and Nichols expensive and untested boondoggle is approved the whole park and the restaurant will be washed away is total nonsense and not supported by scientific facts.

I have not seen any references to Ventura's Seaward Beach, which long ago installed a series of 'permeable' piers, which seems to have saved the beach there, now there is so much sand there that the sand is constantly trying to reclaim the streets and homes there. How would that solution work on the SB County Beach?

This "aging layabout" has donated nearly 1900 hours of volunteer service to Goleta Pier since 2006 ... I consider it time well spent and not wasted at all. The Pier community is a wonderful mix of interesting and delightful people, many of whom have been visiting the Pier for decades.

I'm sure you would agree - please take the time to visit when the Center is open (Thurs - Sun, 11am-4pm.) Grab one of the outside stools and let's talk.

Ok I have been coming to Goleta beach since my father could put me in a bike seat for kids. Sadly erosion and changing weather and sea patterns are part of nature. If the beach goes away it goes away. In all honestly Goleta beach really needs a ton of work. As for the wonderful people that hang out come on a bunch of homeless people that hang and drink all day or a few college kids that come and go every 4 years. Not a huge lose to me.

Personally with the economic times we are in I can think of many more important things that we could spend taxes dollars on. Let nature take it's course take the building out and clean it up so that no harm will be done to the environment and let it be. People could still use the beach till it's either gone or comes back as nature dictates.

I am glad to see the Commission has chosen the natural process.We need to move development away from the coast.In Pleasure Point, they decided to save the road while acknowledging that the surf will be lost to higher sea levels.Every sea wall needs to be mitigated with both lateral and vertical access.In many areas, it is very hard to get to the coast and they are building sea walls that will lead to the loss of our beaches.They could at least require a path down to the beach when they let owners build seawall.The Seawalls could have elevated sandy walkways with access to the sea.A group of owners might need to band together to remove a house every few blocks for a park and access.This would help open the wall of wealth that keeps us from the coastal land that we own as Californians.In many areas, planed retreat is the norm.There could be a moratorium on remodels and eventually buildings on the coast could be recycled and the coast opened to the citizens again.I hope the Coastal Commission will continue in this direction.

The only one who really got it is Bird. It seems like everyone is just focused on the beach. You need to look farther up steam. We have a bunch of debris dams all over the Los Padres National Forest, which will not allow the proper amount of soil and sand to flow to the beaches and replenish the coast line. If you want to fix the problem it can’t be a knee jerk approach. We need to look at the problem as a whole.

Additionally, coastal sand migration does have some historic validity with the Port Hueneme break-water and other large scale projects; but to extrapolate this to Goleta Beach and storm erosion is absurd.